User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:24:07 AM EDT
[#1]
I would say that they violate your rights indefinitely... but good luck telling that to anyone who can do anything over there.
Then if you used the 'being part of the Union', you'll probably get slapped in the face by the States' Rights side of the coin that the demotards have no right to use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:25:59 AM EDT
[#2]
Just don't travel thru Commiefornia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:26:12 AM EDT
[#3]
-When will America invade and liberate California?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:27:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Maybe think of it like going from one nation or state to another. the nation of cali does not allow or reconize the rights of the nation of nevada. Just like the nation of mexico does not allow civilian possesion of ammunition, but the nation of the united states does. (or something like that)
*shrug* 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:28:38 AM EDT
[#5]
On the basis that California has the right to govern itself. Same with all the other non gun friendly states such as my home state NJ. Even though the 2nd amendment guarentees you the right to keep and bare arms it says nothing about the right to keep and bare ANY and ALL arms available. Which is a great loophole for the anti gun fucks.
 Doesnt legality suck ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:34:08 AM EDT
[#6]
....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It certainly doesn't say that a gov't can limit the type of arms that are to be born by the people..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:40:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Is that not my "right" as a citizen? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:40:37 AM EDT
[#8]
What you have that is termed an "assault weapon" may be brought to California for if you are coming here for the purpose of a "shooting competition" or if you are traveling through California to get somewhere else. For instance cutting across some portion of NorCal to get to Oregon. The vast majority of handguns are on the California Safe Handgun list. You can bring your CCW gun into California, but you can not carry it concealed.
State's Rights. California can govern its own borders at it sees fit so long as they are in line with the Constitution (or the current interpretation of the Const I guess). EDIT: If you want to come of Cali and you want to bring your AR, just get yourself set up to take part in a 3 gun match while you're here. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:41:29 AM EDT
[#9]
That is very much what it is "like." But this ISN'T Europe. My rights suppossedly exists in any state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:42:41 AM EDT
[#10]
As I am not a resident of California I may not register "legal" firearms therefor I may not "legally" bear them according to my civil rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:44:36 AM EDT
[#11]
You have the right to travel through any area and not be affected by its gun laws as long as the guns you have are legal at your start point and at your destination. That is Federal law. Of course, they have to be locked up, so yes, if you're traveling through California, they will deny you your right to carry concealed (ie bear arms).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:45:10 AM EDT
[#12]
If you are within the borders of California then you are subject to CA laws. It doesn't matter what State you are a resident/citizen of. If you get a speeding ticket with an order to appear when passing though Needles, CA...can you get it dealt with in your home state? Afterall, you're not a citizen of California. Ofcourse not. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:45:58 AM EDT
[#13]
If you earn your living in CA and retire to another state CA will tax your pension but not send you a ballot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:47:00 AM EDT
[#14]
That is complete bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 10:48:50 AM EDT
[#15]
duh......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:01:23 AM EDT
[#16]
You can transport a weapon, it just has to be done according to the law, like everywhere else.
You can "bear arms", just not certain prohibited ones. For example, a Rem 870, Garand, 1911, etc., etc., etc. Your right to self defense doesn't presuppose any kind of weapon. It's true that if you moved here, your "assault weapons" would not be transferrable into the state. That would surely suck (and does), since I've seen some of your collection. Many of CA laws were very similar to the Fed. laws until the most recent ban expired. Sadly, it's not over for CA or the Feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:43:18 AM EDT
[#17]
WTF! How the hell is that legal! ETA: If they ever get the idea that they can tax everyone who was ever born in CA then I'm screwed!  Vulcan94 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:47:30 AM EDT
[#18]
But they aren't. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:52:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Recent retirement class I went to said that if you work for the Fed. Gov. this cannot be done. As your retirement funds are in control of the Fed. Gov. the sate will have no control over them. I have also heard, but not confirmed, that action is being taken on this dumb ass law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:59:45 AM EDT
[#20]
I'll grant you that, which is why I qualified it with the part in parenthesis. Current interpretation says they are. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:00:56 PM EDT
[#21]
Can you not get a visitor permit like the military?
At one time I was thinking about going to FT Irwin CA. I checked and was told I could bring my rifles as long as I got a temp registration and signed a statement that when I was reassigned I would take them with me. FREE |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:08:11 PM EDT
[#22]
I can't believe you're asking this. Of COURSE California is violating your rights. EVERY state in the union violates your constitutional rights to keep and bear arms in one way or another. But specifically for California - it has no RKBA in it's state constitution and since the 2nd Amendment has not been "incorporated" to apply to states, until such time as SCOTUS rules in our favor, states can pretty much do as they please wrt RKBA (see Maryland, New York, Illinois, etc) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:11:26 PM EDT
[#23]
I think it was my fifth great-grandfather that was part of the original invasion force in the 1840s. If they ever ask for volunteers to retake it, give me a call.  There is still a sidewalk in downtown LA with his name in it from his contractor days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:18:01 PM EDT
[#24]
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.
You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless. However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do. The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government. Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:28:41 PM EDT
[#25]
" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that "shall not be infringed" refers SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY to the Federal Gov't? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Does the above allow for STATES to seize your property or search your homes in the dead of night with no warrant or cause? "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Does the above allow for STATES to ignore "due process", hold you indefinitely without charge for crimes or sieze your home with no compensation? "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Does the above allow for STATES to impose cruel torture as punishment? Since the Consitution does not SPECIFICALLY state that the above limitations are restricted ONLY to the FedGov, then it must be understood to mean that NO GOV'T entity should be able to engage upon the common people such acts as "unreasonable search & seizure", "cruel & unusual punishment" and "infringement of the RKBA". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:30:46 PM EDT
[#26]
What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so. That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision. All of the amendments apply to all of the states. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:34:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Is CA violating your rights by infringing on your right to bear arms? No, not until the 2nd amendment is legally incorporated with the 14th to apply to the states as the other amendments are.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:37:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Bear in mind that it is the Constitution of the United States government. eta: It CONSTITUTES and outlines what the Federal government may do. The Constitution of the United States does NOT constitute the powers and authority of the State government because, as the constitution itself states power is held first by the States and only delegated out under a strict set of guidelines in the constitution.
Powers are held by the states unless specifically delegated to the Federal Government. Thats how it works. However, by the same political philosophy, one could claim that no right of yours is a power of the State's unless specifically delegated to it by your state constitution. Thats what I'm going with anyways. So yes, technically I suppose if the State of California's constitution does not allow the state legislature to make law regulating firearms, then yes they are violating your rights as a citizen of california. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:43:40 PM EDT
[#29]
So, the 5th Amendment means nothing in California? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:43:58 PM EDT
[#30]
But it IS specifically delegated to the fedgov.  ALL of the amendments apply to ALL of the states. Louisiana can't revoke womens' voting rights just because its state constitution doesn't specifically outlaw it. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:46:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Of course they do...but what can we do about it as long as the socialists in LA, SanFran and the other urban areas control the state?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:46:37 PM EDT
[#32]
So, you are going to ignore MacCallans questions about the other amendments in the Bill of Rights and just keep repeating yourself? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:47:07 PM EDT
[#33]
No offense, SteyrAUG, but the answer should be obvious. Any violation of the 2A is illegal and unconstitutional and an infringement upon your natural rights.
Of course, no one in power wants you to have your natural rights, so you're screwed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:50:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Actually, I don't know the law that well on how exactly Federal BoR amendments also apply to the states. Was this created after the Civil War so that the Feds could outlaw slavery in all the states?
Whatever the foundation of that is, I don't see how you can have it both ways. Either all of the amendments of the BoR apply to state government, or they don't. If they want to apply free speech, equal protection, etc. rights from the Federal BoR, then RKBA from the second must apply too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:50:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Where does is say such nonsense ANYWHERE in the 2nd-8th Amendments??? Where does it say "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by the Federal Gov't"?? Where does it say "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb by the Federal Gov't; nor shall be compelled by the Federal Gov't in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"?? Where does it say "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted by the Federal Gov't."?? Where does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" by the Federal Gov't."?? There is NO protection of ANY of our rights if the BOR was written to apply ONLY to the FedGov. If the states are free to abolish free speech, ban guns, confiscate property, search without warrant or cause, jail people without charge or trial, engage in double-jeopardy and inflict torture as punishment - then the BOR might as well not even have been written. Only a fool would think the Founding Fathers believed all of the above destructions of our individual rights should be left up to the states to decide. THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE BOR! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:50:19 PM EDT
[#36]
Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:51:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Yes............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 12:58:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights. Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so. And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do. You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government. eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:02:10 PM EDT
[#39]
Yes. Don't forget ny. Speaking of this, there is a law, forget what it's called. It basically says something to the extent of one state has to recognize another's licenses and its right to govern its citizens. What is it called, and the CCW BS of CA and NY definately violate it. And it's not state rights! Does one state have a right to deny the existance of driver's licenses, license plates, registrations, etc? NO! Piss poor argument there. Anyone remember the name of that law? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:04:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Are you really this dim? THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. After two of my posts and two posts from other members SPECIFICALLY shutting down this arguement of yours, you still aren't understanding.  The US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND. No lesser governing body within the borders of the US may violate ANY of its provisions. PERIOD. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:07:10 PM EDT
[#41]
The Founding Fathers were not stupid. The same tyranny that can smother all rights at the Federal level can do so at the state level. That's why the BOR do not directly address limitations towards the Federal Gov't but instead state that those enumerated rights of the people are protected - PERIOD. The BOR was not written as part of the original Constitution - but added a few years later at the insistance of those who feared that individual rights would be at risk if the current Constitution were left as-is. They were concerned about protecting rights - not directing those protections against the Federal Gov't ALONE. Again, if all of the amendments in the BOR protect ONLY against Federal Gov't intrusion but intentionally ALLOW for state gov't intrusion, then the BOR in fact offers NO protection of our rights and is an utterly useless waste of paper and ink and the FFs were completely naive, myopic fools. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:13:45 PM EDT
[#42]
What is that law's name? Something to the extent of recognizing legal documents of other states.
That's what we should be bringing up here. That BOR argument isn't gonna get you anywhere with today's courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:16:03 PM EDT
[#43]
States Rights
the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution., |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:22:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:27:05 PM EDT
[#45]
They weren't myopic. But they certainly didn't intend for the constitution to become some sort of superior sphere of dominance above the states. The Constitution simply DOES NOT address the intrusion of state government into private life. There is no way you can read that into it because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the text or context supports that. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:29:07 PM EDT
[#46]
[moe sizlak]OH, yeah, well, you're talkin' about your REAL rights there[/moe sizlak]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:29:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Correct. Just as those same rights supposedly exist in Cali for Caliens, but are being denied. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:33:42 PM EDT
[#48]
- ban all firearms - confiscate property with no compensation - search your home without warrant or cause - jail people without charge or trial - engage in double-jeopardy - ignore grand jury requirements - impose excessive fines - force self-incrimination - abolish all jury trials - refuse the accused to have defense counsel - inflict torture as punishment - summarily execute people in the streets Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want. Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.  |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:36:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#50]
True. Federal law(U.S. Constitution) is supreme law. No lower bodies of government can violate them. The point that I'm making is that the 2nd Amendment is ignored in (all) the courts. |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
